We too believe that this is a huge strategic initiative for our community.
And we were thrilled after the meeting that we attended that
the city, the county, both educational institutions, the Industrial
Authority, everyone there, the hospital for sure, all agreed
that this had to be a significant incentive.

...certainly one of the most important recruiting tools that we're
going to have to figure out in this community how we can get it. To
be honest with you, it's a wide open question. Do you have the
infrastructure? How much will the infrastructure that we currently
have support? We're going to have to find a way to get with the
professional providers and find out just exactly what these
capabilities are in our community.... I see that as the big
question. We've got to figure out where to start with it.

I think it is probably in my opinion one of the number one issues
that this community is going to have to address from the standpoint
of where we go with economic development in the future for this
community not only for new economic development but for existing
businesses as well. As a business begins to grow,

Fortune 500 customer service operation
Needs secure telecommunications infrastructure; site visit 5 March. (And
once again Col. Ricketts believes a company that says we're the primary
option, without any sign of any due diligence to find out whether that's true.)
Later,
Tom Call asked
how many jobs that company might bring, and Col. Ricketts elaborated
on 100 jobs or more, with some detail on timeframe for bringing them on.
Then
Chairman Roy Copeland asked for elaboration
on the telecommunications infrastructure issue.
Col. Ricketts' answer was support for the training facility was what
was needed, including bandwidth and security.

Monday, 18 February 2013

Another bad idea from ALEC already passed in SC and NC and is now in the GA
legislature, getting coverage in several national technical
and political blogs:
HB 282, which would effectively forbid
municipal broadband if any commercial carrier offers 1.5Mbps.
It's up for a hearing this week: time to call your state rep.

Incumbent broadband providers are pushing legislation that would
restrict Georgia towns from building municipal broadband networks.
Under the proposal, if a single home in a census tract has Internet
access at speeds of 1.5Mbps or above, the town would be prohibited
from offering broadband service to anyone in that tract.

is home to most advanced smart grid in the nation, customers are
enjoying Internet speeds that are almost 100 times faster than the
national average. Most Internet users in the U.S. have access to
about 4.5 megabits of Internet speed.

We wish!
OK, you can get spees that fast here:
with Verizon 4G LTE,
not too many places via land access.

They have no incentive to do so. Because they never enter one
another's territories, they don't face the competition that might
spur such expansion.

Instead, incumbent internet access providers such as Comcast and
Time Warner (for wired access) and AT&T and Verizon (for
complementary wireless access) are in “harvesting” mode.
They're raising average revenue per user through special pricing for
planned “specialized services” and usage-based billing,
which allows the incumbents to constrain demand. The ecosystem these
companies have built is never under stress, because consumers do
their best to avoid heavy charges for using more data than they're
supposed to. Where users have no expectation of abundance, there's
no need to build fiber on the wired side of the business or build
small cells fed by fiber on the wireless side.

If the current internet access providers that dominate the American
telecommunications landscape could get away with it, they'd sell
nothing but specialized services and turn internet access into a
dirt road.

Affordable high-speed Internet access would bring us
jobs, community, "online commerce and services, the ability to reach world
markets, to invent and innovate, to learn and communicate" and
"a wealth of economic activity and information"
writes Susan Crawford, a very savvy and experienced communications law professor
who has been recommended by many as a potential chair of the FCC,
who also explains why we aren't currently getting it.

The sea change in policy that led to the current situation has
been coordinated over the past twenty years by legions of lobbyists,
hired-guneconomists, and credulous regulators. The cable companies
have no incentive to upgrade their core network hardware to ensure
that advanced ﬁberconnections are available to every home
throughout the country. Communications companies describe globally
competitive high-speed access as aluxury, just as the private
electricity companies did a century ago.

Yet communications services are now as important as electricity.
Today if you asked American mayors what technology they most want
for their city, the majority would say, “affordable high-speed
Internet access.” And they want these networks not simply for
the jobs created to construct them but because the Internet brings
the world to their community.
High-speed Internet access gives towns
and cities online commerce and services, the ability to reach world
markets, to invent and innovate, to learn and communicate. It brings
a wealth of economic activity and information.
But despite these
manifold beneﬁts, Americans continue to treat such services as the
exclusive domain of private monopolies and as luxuries
obtainable only by the wealthy.

Thursday, 10 January 2013

Why are we furloughing librarians to save $30,000
when we apparently floated bonds for unbudgeted millions on the county palace?
That's essentially what I asked
the Lowndes County Commission at their
8 January 2013 Regular Session.
Nobody had an answer.

Just to add to what Commissioner Lee said,
in addition to everyone appreciating all your service, I'm sure
we all appreciate all his long years of service.

Of course there are some things that have come up since he was first
on the Commission.
For example, Internet access.

And I really appreciate that clock there.
It's a sign that sometimes change is good.

At least they are doing a few things differently.

When this building complex was opened in 2010,
the county put out a double-sheet flyer saying it
was completely paid off out of SPLOST money,
with zero dollars owed.
I'm wondering how it is that then, either in November or December,
the Commission just before your one here,
refinanced bonds that included I think it was six or seven million dollars
for this very building complex?
I'm very confused by that.
I wonder if someone could clarify how we're
paying on something that was completely 100% paid off with zero owed.